What do these fine words mean? I recommend the entertaining analysis by Andrew Sullivan. The fine language is called “bullshit”, used to cover up the truth. What it’s really about – not surprisingly – is to disguise the industry’s propaganda so that it will look like independent journalism and become more efficient.

It’s very simple. Newspapers are having trouble finding sources of income. Unilever wants a credible platform for their advertising, where it looks like journalism. Win-win. Except for the readers, who will find it increasingly difficult to know what is news and what is advertising.

Just an example: Why spend money on TV commercials for low-fat margarine when planted newspaper articles about how “harmful” natural fats, such as butter, are a lot more effective?

In Sweden Unilever has been found in violation of the law several times for such disguised advertisements for margarine. Now the UK risks seeing the same thing happen at a totally new scale.

More

18 comments

That's worrying because The Guardian is a respected newspaper here (in as much as any newspaper is respected these days). Papers abroad lift their stories from it too. Very worrying. I think the paper's standards are seriously compromised.

Companies spend millions on market research to determine what products to develop. If Unilever has found out that people now prefer natural fats to factory produced fat, why do they waste their money on propaganda rather than getting their act together to give the customers what they want? It won't wash, just do what is right.

What I find interesting is that any matter in which I have been personally involved, the newspapers get only about 50-90% of the facts right. There is a high error rate to begin with (journalists tend not to have a degree in their topic) and the ideological slant is palpable, whether from commercial influence, government influence or ideological agenda.

It is interesting to see differences regarding Paleo and LCHF. Here in Toronto, the Globe and Mail (centre-left) did not report the recent study in which Paleo outperformed low-fat (or anything in that line), but the National Post (centre-right) did highlight the results. I am not sure why pro-fat diet is silenced by the left here, but this has become an ongoing topic of ridicule in the online comments sections to nutrition and health articles for the Globe and Mail. I expect it is more a question of towing the line for government guidelines and vested commercial interests because the Globe and Mail is the more establishment-oriented paper.

Very worrying indeed. I used to think of the Guardian as a respectable and trustworthy newspaper - but no longer!

Unilever are always thinking up new ways to further their misleading and dangerous mission to convince people that their processed manufactured rancid oils are 'heart healthy' and that natural fats that have been with us though out human history such as butter are going to kill us.

They have already infiltrated the British Heart Foundation with their Flora Pro Active campaign and have donated £750,000 to the BHF.

Hi Solomon, I think we all agree, but there is a snag using real ingredients. Big snag that goes through the whole industrialized food world: Sales price provides for rawmaterials, preparation, distribution, advertisment, sales costs and profit.
The two first items may be well over 50% for butter, meat and real vegetables.
But for industrial oils it is often just 5% instead. Of the rest a lot is invested in luring us to buy something very small for maybe 25% less or even 50% less than the real thing that has 10x more "real thing" in it
The same applies when the first ingredient is wheat, or usually wheat and sugar.
But many small enterprises can manage with real products. like Joel Salatin in the US and other suppliers or real grass fed and finished beef. We have started buying our beef from a farmer that refuses to CAFO his cattle for 3-6 months grain consumption to double in weight before the end. The taste and quality beats all other meats! And of course also the placebo effect as I guess comes through!

Just reading themes and stories at these sites I regard as a great privilege and I am grateful to Diet doctor Andreas for it ! Here we just need to open our eyes to understand and see great alternatives and not worry too much about the multinational food companies.

I live in US and noticed that issues often do not cross a party line - high-fat diets are more supported by the people and news outlets from the right, so called "liberals" are often vegetarians, worry about global warming more than people on the right. As far as I remember, only Fox news invited for interviews Drs. Eades and Davis.

I don't trust anyone when it comes to applying anything to my families lives. For example: My son has been given some nasal cream for nosebleeds, so I have spent 2 hours checking to see if it complies with my idea of good medicine.

I realise this is bordering on paranoia, but who do we trust? My doctor is fab and he knows that when I come into the surgery I ask a lot of questions and so he now prepares printed sheets of info, not only giving information but with further research if I want to pursue it.

Therefore, believing a newspaper just because they are in print and people buy it, is not my idea of good anything. You have to take it as a given that any organisation that wants to sell you something has hidden agendas. They are for profit, hence, individual health or well being is not their main focus.

I think the embedding of advertising is a very worrying event. Since the Guardian is said to be the print version of the BBC, how long will it be before this organization starts to carry the planted stories.

I must admit it is sometime since I gave up buying the Guardian. Like the BBC, it seems to be run by arts graduates who do not understand any science and are susceptible to any glib phrase that on the surface seems plausible, such as, fat in - fat on.